\\ Purdue Game Discussion Thread //

commando said:
grandpasknee said:
Any chance the O struggles we're seeing are the result of Beck/Bo trying to push the offensive envelope a bit this week for the third week starters TA/RKIII....opening the playbook a bit more to see what they can handle? Or are they just having a bad day. If just having a bad day, this is a good day for it.

Edit...can't see the game, just listening...
Click to expand...
it looks to me that purdue is really playing with some intensity today. it might be that they are playing better then anyone expected
Click to expand...
Good point...bad team or not, they are a D-1 team with some obviously athletic guys on the field.

 
EbylHusker said:
Does anyone actually think the rule is good? Because I have yet to see a single fan who agrees with the rule. Claiming someone does without providing any evidence is pretty amusing.
Click to expand...
The rule is good when it's applied correctly. The problem I see is it's to subjective. It's too broad of a rule with no real clear indicators on what is and isn't "targeting." We've seen other plays similar to SJBs today that weren't called targeting and others that should have been targeting, not called. Interpretation is the name of the game with this rule and it's the interpretation that sucks. The rule needs to be adjusted with a clearer outline on what is and isn't a penalty

 
I can live with the penalty but the ejection on SJB was atrocious.

2nd half: I've seen enough of RKIII to be honest. I'd like so see some more option with TA, play action, and keep up the downfield passing off that. Purdue will wear down easily, but some option trickery is what I thing will keep drives moving on the ground in Q3.

 
I'm frustrated guys.

How is saying that officials got a call correct "Nebraska bashing" ???? I'm an enormous Husker fan and bashing isn't my style

 
EbylHusker said:
Does anyone actually think the rule is good? Because I have yet to see a single fan who agrees with the rule. Claiming someone does without providing any evidence is pretty amusing.
Click to expand...
No but some are being pretentious "rules guys" and acting like they're better than the rest of us because they have such a "higher understanding" of rules. The rest of us are trying to watch some football and being prevented from doing that by the guys in black and white.

 
Chaddyboxer said:
When you get hits like that, it's pay day fellas. Same goes with touchdowns...when I got my first touchdown as a FB....I actually teared up a bit because all the work you gave during practice paid off. Game day is the check baby. I really hate these new targeting rules.
Click to expand...
Never scored a TD in HS football, the only place I played FB. But I do remember my first basket in HS basketball. (I was one of those 20 points per season guys mostly accustomed to pine time).

 
HuskerfaninOkieland said:
The rule is good when it's applied correctly. The problem I see is it's to subjective. It's too broad of a rule with no real clear indicators on what is and isn't "targeting." We've seen other plays similar to SJBs today that weren't called targeting and others that should have been targeting, not called. Interpretation is the name of the game with this rule and it's the interpretation that sucks. The rule needs to be adjusted with a clearer outline on what is and isn't a penalty
Click to expand...
I would say the issue with the rule is the entire part about being ejected automatically for targeting. Based on the rules right now, that was targeting and it's an ejection. The problem is, all hits like that should now be ejections. In reality, it should be like it was before where you get ejected for a malicious, intentional hit upstairs.

What they have done is take the interpretation OUT of the hands of the refs. Now they have no choice but to eject. And that is an issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top